[Halifax] St. Pat's Crossing (6067 Quinpool) | ? m | 4x28 fl | U/C

[worldlyhaligonian]

My only hope is that they subcontract to build some of this.

Surely there is construction slack in Toronto with their building boom slowing (at least in towers of our scale, which are run of the mill... not even 'scrapers).

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by new2halifax

I know the answer is probably budget constraints, but how common is the "BRT first upgrade to LRT later" approach? Sounds like an inefficient and more costly approach than just build LRT from the start.

I agree with this.

To me it sounds like typical Halifax politics of not planning anything too big or complex (because of lack of confidence or ability?), but doing more of what we've done (hey, we've done buses before!) so that people will be 'happy' that they are doing something. Then the promise of LRT can always loom on the horizon as delays happen and deadlines get pushed back. So we can hope, but most of us will ever see it in our lifetimes, if it happens at all.

Of course, some might say that I can be a tad cynical, so keep that in mind as you read my comments...

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Of course, public transit in Tokyo is infamous for quite literally packing people into subway cars like sardines, not a good place for claustrophobics.

This sounds more 1970s or 1980s than today.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Jonovision

Funny how this and Bloomfield have excavation listed as both beginning in August 2025 and neither have begun. Banc has struggled with building on tower at a time. How are they going to manage 7 towers at once spread across two sites?!

There must be something in the economics of developments that makes it more feasible to tear down structures and create the illusion of construction without actually building anything on the site for years (or decades?)? Not sure as I'm not in the industry, but this does seem to happen more often than it should.

Clearly these companies know what they are capable of taking on, so it shouldn't be a mystery that some of these buildings are going to be uncompleted for a long time, while the land remains vacant, ugly, and of no use to anybody, really. Maybe the city needs to implement a penalty situation for doing this that will make developers change their tactics?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

There must be something in the economics of developments that makes it more feasible to tear down structures and create the illusion of construction without actually building anything on the site for years (or decades?)? Not sure as I'm not in the industry, but this does seem to happen more often than it should.

Clearly these companies know what they are capable of taking on, so it shouldn't be a mystery that some of these buildings are going to be uncompleted for a long time, while the land remains vacant, ugly, and of no use to anybody, really. Maybe the city needs to implement a penalty situation for doing this that will make developers change their tactics?

I don't know about penalties, but it makes little sense to do nothing and let a situation like what happened at Bloomfield develop. It took just a few days to raze the site once it finally happened. There was some cost of course but that cost would have happened anyway, it was just a matter of the timing. The only thing it fails to prevent is the usual complaining about an empty lot sitting that way for an extended period, which I have more sympathy for. Most developers have only so much management capacity and credit, so not everything can start building immediately. But of course people complain regardless.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Most developers have only so much management capacity and credit, so not everything can start building immediately. But of course people complain regardless.

I think it's really the municipality's fault. They defer maintenance, abandon buildings, then hand over derelict sites to developers with minimal strings attached, presumably to maximize revenues, years before they are ready to begin construction. All of that has a negative impact on the city.

It would be more defensible in a place like Detroit or maybe a war-torn country, but it's harder to defend in a growing city in the middle of a development boom. A large percentage of the total weedy lots and derelict buildings trace back to government and a couple of private owners. I'm pretty skeptical that the Bloomfield or old library buildings present some kind of uniquely difficult maintenance challenge or that there's no demand for that space. I think that what happens is maintenance is deferred and various groups argue for brand new buildings, then HRM staff is asked to do about it after the fact and the already-degraded and abandoned sites are put up for sale.

Around here it's very common to see 100 year old public buildings with basic maintenance in normal use, and you don't really hear the "end of life" trope about buildings.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

I don't know about penalties, but it makes little sense to do nothing and let a situation like what happened at Bloomfield develop. It took just a few days to raze the site once it finally happened. There was some cost of course but that cost would have happened anyway, it was just a matter of the timing. The only thing it fails to prevent is the usual complaining about an empty lot sitting that way for an extended period, which I have more sympathy for. Most developers have only so much management capacity and credit, so not everything can start building immediately. But of course people complain regardless.

Of course it’s your right to try to portray me as an unreasonable complainer on an internet forum, but the reality is that I have pretty low standards for what is acceptable, and yet the city even fails to meet those.

Standard 1: If a property is slated for redevelopment, then require the developer to submit a timeline for construction to occur.

Standard 2: If construction is imminent but a few years off, and the structure on the property is occupiable, offer incentives to the developer (tax breaks?) to keep the property occupied until construction is scheduled to start.

Standard 3: If demolition is necessary and construction will not meet a predetermined timeline, then require the developer to landscape and maintain the property until requirements are met to start and complete construction. This would prevent the neighbourhood from having to deal with an ugly excavated lot with construction fencing for literally years, as happens.

Standard 4: If the above standards are not met, then a financial penalty is applied (to make it less attractive for the developer to create construction sites that stay static for years).

I just made this up on the fly, so it doesn’t seem unreasonable for people with professional credentials and jobs that deal with this very thing to be able to come up with something better than we have.

On the other hand, maybe there are a lot of Keiths around who are happy with this situation?

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by OldDartmouthMark

Of course it’s your right to try to portray me as an unreasonable complainer on an internet forum, but the reality is that I have pretty low standards for what is acceptable, and yet the city even fails to meet those.

On the other hand, maybe there are a lot of Keiths around who are happy with this situation?

Well, I wasn't expecting that.

I did not in any way characterize you as an "unreasonable complainer". I mean, c'mon, man. Even when one tries to have reasonable discourse, if you take offense at minor differences of opinion that's all on you, not my comment.

The problem begins with HRM taking possession of an abandoned school property with no plan to do anything with it for years except letting it decay further and becoming a graffiti-strewn place for the homeless. Even an empty lot would be better than what it became.

In this particular case the reality is that HRM let it linger until it was too far gone and then could not resist the prize of a big cheque from selling it. They didn't want the much smaller cheque that would have resulted from putting multiple conditions on the sale.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The problem begins with HRM taking possession of an abandoned school property with no plan to do anything with it for years except letting it decay further and becoming a graffiti-strewn place for the homeless.

Looking at the library situation, it was completely predictable and caused by HRM's own plans. When you see it discussed today people often talk as though the building is a huge albatross but I wonder how much basic maintenance (not catching up on deferred maintenance) would have been. And you sometimes see quotes about how there's no use for it, but I think they're conflating "no demand" with "nobody wants to pay for maintenance we deferred". I would imagine there's some demand for some kind of public use in there as it's in a very busy area, even if only for some kind of public programming or meeting/working space or whatever.

It's hard to find an HRM project that makes sense and is on track these days. So many are delayed, shelved, bloated, confused, etc.

[ArchAficionado]

Originally Posted by someone123

It's hard to find an HRM project that makes sense and is on track these days. So many are delayed, shelved, bloated, confused, etc.

I think this city needs a serious soul searching moment to reorient their staff to be far, far more efficient and more performance oriented. Watching from afar as someone who moved away years ago, keeping up with the municipal politics, especially surrounding development, feels like watching some sort of lame sitcom.

It's very disappointing to see the old library left to wreck and ruin. It's a unique site and an attractive midcentury institutional building, the likes of which are quickly disappearing. It should be preserved as a community space or thoughtfully adapted into something fresh. Crew Collective Cafe in Montreal comes to mind as a potential concept.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

Crew Collective Cafe in Montreal comes to mind as a potential concept.

I have such a hard time reconciling all of these supposedly doomed buildings in Halifax with the reuse you see in, well, just about every comparable older North American or European city. Many of them have large areas made up of old buildings still in use. And the kids go to school in schools from 1920, etc. Actually you can drive to Lunenburg in 1 hour and see this.

There seems to be a blend of on the one hand incredibly dull-minded overwrought bureaucratization in government, and then on the other low expectations conditioned on a mentality of struggle and decline. It hits strange levels on Barrington like with that metal thing to collect crumbling masonry and the various construction mishaps going on for years with some of the other registered heritage buildings.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

Well, I wasn't expecting that.

I did not in any way characterize you as an "unreasonable complainer". I mean, c'mon, man. Even when one tries to have reasonable discourse, if you take offense at minor differences of opinion that's all on you, not my comment.

The problem begins with HRM taking possession of an abandoned school property with no plan to do anything with it for years except letting it decay further and becoming a graffiti-strewn place for the homeless. Even an empty lot would be better than what it became.

In this particular case the reality is that HRM let it linger until it was too far gone and then could not resist the prize of a big cheque from selling it. They didn't want the much smaller cheque that would have resulted from putting multiple conditions on the sale.

My apologies… I didn’t express myself very well this time. While I am not offended by what you wrote, it appeared that you were inferring that the complaints are the problem vs the actions that lead to the complaints. And I was not referring to only the school properties, but to all that are handled in this manner (the Skye being a poster child for this).

Hope that clears it up a little.

[Colin May]

My primary aka elementary school.... built in 1876 and now an arts centre. https://co-curate.ncl.ac.uk/buddle-arts-centre-wallsend/ Named after a famous mining engineer.
Sting was born nearby on the day before my baby sister and in the same hospital.
We lived in a nice new semi-detached less than 300 feet from the slag heap of the Rising Sun coal mine that employed 800 men at one time. Even closer to our house, about 100 feet away, was a brick shed where the colliery kept explosives.... as I learned when my friends and I lit a small fire in the field and which naturally swiftly spread out of control...cue the fire and police . Now the pit heap is a nature park with glorious views.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

I think it's really the municipality's fault. They defer maintenance, abandon buildings, then hand over derelict sites to developers with minimal strings attached, presumably to maximize revenues, years before they are ready to begin construction. All of that has a negative impact on the city.

It would be more defensible in a place like Detroit or maybe a war-torn country, but it's harder to defend in a growing city in the middle of a development boom. A large percentage of the total weedy lots and derelict buildings trace back to government and a couple of private owners. I'm pretty skeptical that the Bloomfield or old library buildings present some kind of uniquely difficult maintenance challenge or that there's no demand for that space. I think that what happens is maintenance is deferred and various groups argue for brand new buildings, then HRM staff is asked to do about it after the fact and the already-degraded and abandoned sites are put up for sale.

Around here it's very common to see 100 year old public buildings with basic maintenance in normal use, and you don't really hear the "end of life" trope about buildings.

Originally Posted by someone123

Looking at the library situation, it was completely predictable and caused by HRM's own plans. When you see it discussed today people often talk as though the building is a huge albatross but I wonder how much basic maintenance (not catching up on deferred maintenance) would have been. And you sometimes see quotes about how there's no use for it, but I think they're conflating "no demand" with "nobody wants to pay for maintenance we deferred". I would imagine there's some demand for some kind of public use in there as it's in a very busy area, even if only for some kind of public programming or meeting/working space or whatever.

It's hard to find an HRM project that makes sense and is on track these days. So many are delayed, shelved, bloated, confused, etc.

Originally Posted by ArchAficionado

I think this city needs a serious soul searching moment to reorient their staff to be far, far more efficient and more performance oriented. Watching from afar as someone who moved away years ago, keeping up with the municipal politics, especially surrounding development, feels like watching some sort of lame sitcom.

It's very disappointing to see the old library left to wreck and ruin. It's a unique site and an attractive midcentury institutional building, the likes of which are quickly disappearing. It should be preserved as a community space or thoughtfully adapted into something fresh. Crew Collective Cafe in Montreal comes to mind as a potential concept.

Originally Posted by someone123

I have such a hard time reconciling all of these supposedly doomed buildings in Halifax with the reuse you see in, well, just about every comparable older North American or European city. Many of them have large areas made up of old buildings still in use. And the kids go to school in schools from 1920, etc. Actually you can drive to Lunenburg in 1 hour and see this.

There seems to be a blend of on the one hand incredibly dull-minded overwrought bureaucratization in government, and then on the other low expectations conditioned on a mentality of struggle and decline. It hits strange levels on Barrington like with that metal thing to collect crumbling masonry and the various construction mishaps going on for years with some of the other registered heritage buildings.

Much truth and wisdom in these posts, yet improvements in the situation seem few and far between. It's really feeling like we are stuck in a "Groundhog Day" loop sometimes.

I have a hard time understanding why this seems obvious to reasonable, regular people who are posting on an internet forum, yet the people in the position to do something about it appear to be oblivious to it.

[kzt79]

Originally Posted by someone123

I have such a hard time reconciling all of these supposedly doomed buildings in Halifax with the reuse you see in, well, just about every comparable older North American or European city. Many of them have large areas made up of old buildings still in use. And the kids go to school in schools from 1920, etc. Actually you can drive to Lunenburg in 1 hour and see this.

There seems to be a blend of on the one hand incredibly dull-minded overwrought bureaucratization in government, and then on the other low expectations conditioned on a mentality of struggle and decline. It hits strange levels on Barrington like with that metal thing to collect crumbling masonry and the various construction mishaps going on for years with some of the other registered heritage buildings.

Same goes for hospitals and pretty much any other public buildings in Nova Scotia. In Europe there are well-functioning hospitals literally hundreds of years old, but we can barely get 50 years out of them here...wtf? Looking at the VG for example. I wonder how many decades before the current massive QE construction project gets abandoned and eventually torn down? Probably not very many.

[Keith P.]

On the memorial library building, I cannot understand why the place hasn’t been repurposed as a tourist welcome and info center. It just seems the ideal location.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

On the memorial library building, I cannot understand why the place hasn’t been repurposed as a tourist welcome and info center. It just seems the ideal location.

It could also be a place to display some municipal archive material which I understand is currently held in Burnside.

However I'm sure once they started planning this, it would require 8 studies and would eventually necessitate hundreds of improvements that would balloon the cost into tens of millions. Even though it was somehow okay for the library in 2010.

[OldDartmouthMark]

Originally Posted by someone123

However I'm sure once they started planning this, it would require 8 studies and would eventually necessitate hundreds of improvements that would balloon the cost into tens of millions. Even though it was somehow okay for the library in 2010.

Meanwhile the clock is ticking. We at Halifax SSP should start a pool on when it will be declared non-repairable and must be demolished to be replaced by… nothing (due to the burial ground situation).

[Keith P.]

Originally Posted by someone123

It could also be a place to display some municipal archive material which I understand is currently held in Burnside.

However I'm sure once they started planning this, it would require 8 studies and would eventually necessitate hundreds of improvements that would balloon the cost into tens of millions. Even though it was somehow okay for the library in 2010.

The other piece of that puzzle is that the archive is not easily accessible to the public at present, not just due to the location, but in an operational sense. You cannot just walk in and browse or ask questions. It is a warehouse. Unless you were to staff up heavily and build displays it would make no sense having it on SGR. The demand for such a thing is highly questionable to me. Plus of course it would soon become another HRM money sink costing many millions every year to keep the doors open, even aside from the massive reno and rehab cost for the building.

[someone123]

Originally Posted by Keith P.

The demand for such a thing is highly questionable to me. Plus of course it would soon become another HRM money sink costing many millions every year to keep the doors open, even aside from the massive reno and rehab cost for the building.

I would propose making the library public space or renting out portions of it, allowing developers to build extensions, and then using a portion of it (like the central stairwell/hall area) to display rotating exhibits of archival materials. I think it would be really popular given the location. There could be some related public art installed, or maybe even the cenotaph could be moved there and a fountain installed in the Grand Parade (which was I think the original design).

I also think Peace and Friendship Park should be a historical outdoor park with monuments to the history of the city and province, and the Cornwallis statue should be put back, but there should be more monuments with other groups being invited to add monuments (such as one for Mi'kmaq and one for Acadians).